CVE-2026-45904powerpc/eeh: fix recursive pci_lock_rescan_remove locking in EEH event handling

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: powerpc/eeh: fix recursive pci_lock_rescan_remove locking in EEH event handling The recent commit 1010b4c012b0 ("powerpc/eeh: Make EEH driver device hotplug safe") restructured the EEH driver to improve synchronization with the PCI hotplug layer. However, it inadvertently moved pci_lock_rescan_remove() outside its intended scope in eeh_handle_normal_event(), leading to broken PCI error reporting and improper EEH event triggering. Specifically, eeh_handle_normal_event() acquired pci_lock_rescan_remove() before calling eeh_pe_bus_get(), but eeh_pe_bus_get() itself attempts to acquire the same lock internally, causing nested locking and disrupting normal EEH event handling paths. This patch adds a boolean parameter do_lock to _eeh_pe_bus_get(), with two public wrappers: eeh_pe_bus_get() with locking enabled. eeh_pe_bus_get_nolock() that skips locking. Callers that already hold pci_lock_rescan_remove() now use eeh_pe_bus_get_nolock() to avoid recursive lock acquisition. Additionally, pci_lock_rescan_remove() calls are restored to the correct position—after eeh_pe_bus_get() and immediately before iterating affected PEs and devices. This ensures EEH-triggered PCI removes occur under proper bus rescan locking without recursive lock contention. The eeh_pe_loc_get() function has been split into two functions: eeh_pe_loc_get(struct eeh_pe *pe) which retrieves the loc for given PE. eeh_pe_loc_get_bus(struct pci_bus *bus) which retrieves the location code for given bus. This resolves lockdep warnings such as: <snip> [ 84.964298] [ T928] ============================================ [ 84.964304] [ T928] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected [ 84.964311] [ T928] 6.18.0-rc3 #51 Not tainted [ 84.964315] [ T928] -------------------------------------------- [ 84.964320] [ T928] eehd/928 is trying to acquire lock: [ 84.964324] [ T928] c000000003b29d58 (pci_rescan_remove_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: pci_lock_rescan_remove+0x28/0x40 [ 84.964342] [ T928] but task is already holding lock: [ 84.964347] [ T928] c000000003b29d58 (pci_rescan_remove_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: pci_lock_rescan_remove+0x28/0x40 [ 84.964357] [ T928] other info that might help us debug this: [ 84.964363] [ T928] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 84.964367] [ T928] CPU0 [ 84.964370] [ T928] ---- [ 84.964373] [ T928] lock(pci_rescan_remove_lock); [ 84.964378] [ T928] lock(pci_rescan_remove_lock); [ 84.964383] [ T928] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 84.964388] [ T928] May be due to missing lock nesting notation [ 84.964393] [ T928] 1 lock held by eehd/928: [ 84.964397] [ T928] #0: c000000003b29d58 (pci_rescan_remove_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: pci_lock_rescan_remove+0x28/0x40 [ 84.964408] [ T928] stack backtrace: [ 84.964414] [ T928] CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 928 Comm: eehd Not tainted 6.18.0-rc3 #51 VOLUNTARY [ 84.964417] [ T928] Hardware name: IBM,9080-HEX POWER10 (architected) 0x800200 0xf000006 of:IBM,FW1060.00 (NH1060_022) hv:phyp pSeries [ 84.964419] [ T928] Call Trace: [ 84.964420] [ T928] [c0000011a7157990] [c000000001705de4] dump_stack_lvl+0xc8/0x130 (unreliable) [ 84.964424] [ T928] [c0000011a71579d0] [c0000000002f66e0] print_deadlock_bug+0x430/0x440 [ 84.964428] [ T928] [c0000011a7157a70] [c0000000002fd0c0] __lock_acquire+0x1530/0x2d80 [ 84.964431] [ T928] [c0000011a7157ba0] [c0000000002fea54] lock_acquire+0x144/0x410 [ 84.964433] [ T928] [c0000011a7157cb0] [c0000011a7157cb0] __mutex_lock+0xf4/0x1050 [ 84.964436] [ T928] [c0000011a7157e00] [c000000000de21d8] pci_lock_rescan_remove+0x28/0x40 [ 84.964439] [ T928] [c0000011a7157e20] [c00000000004ed98] eeh_pe_bus_get+0x48/0xc0 [ 84.964442] [ T928] [c0000011a7157e50] [c00000 ---truncated---

CVSS

5.5 MEDIUM (v3.1, NVD)CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Weakness (CWE)

Not given

Known exploited

Not in CISA's KEV catalog

EPSS (exploitation in the next 30 days)

Not loaded for this CVE

Assigned by

Linux

NVD analysis

Undergoing Analysis

Record last updated

May 27, 2026

First seen by InfoSec Signals

Oct 9, 2026

The CVE record on cve.org · NVD's entry

The CVE record is authoritative. Products marked “from the name” were identified from the CNA's free-text names, not a CPE, and are matched less certainly. This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.